Language Confusion Benchmark
Models answer prompts in 15 languages and must reply in the language the user wants, both in monolingual and crosslingual settings. A language detector scores line-level and word-level pass rates.
The Command A technical report gives crosslingual line-level pass rates on it. EMNLP 2024.
In the authors’ words
We investigate a surprising limitation of LLMs: their inability to consistently generate text in a user's desired language. We create the Language Confusion Benchmark (LCB) to evaluate such failures, covering 15 typologically diverse languages with existing and newly-created English and multilingual prompts. We evaluate a range of LLMs on monolingual and cross-lingual generation reflecting practical use cases, finding that Llama Instruct and Mistral models exhibit high degrees of language confusion and even the strongest models fail to consistently respond in the correct language. We observe that base and English-centric instruct models are more prone to language confusion, which is aggravated by complex prompts and high sampling temperatures. We find that language confusion can be partially mitigated via few-shot prompting, multilingual SFT and preference tuning. We release our language confusion benchmark, which serves as a first layer of efficient, scalable multilingual evaluation at https://github.com/for-ai/language-confusion.
- Level
- Everyday Most adults, without training
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
Cohere Command A leads with 93%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 93% | Apr 2025 | Model card |
The best score passed 85% in Apr 2025
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
One system card reports it
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Apr 2025 | | 93 | Language Confusion Benchmark crosslingual line-level pass rate, average of 14 languages (Table 10) | Capabilities |
More in Multilingual
- MMMLU In use MMLU professionally translated into 14 languages. Multiple-choice accuracy. Claude Mythos Preview 92.7%
- WMT24++ In use English-to-55-language translation of WMT24 test data. Scored with automatic metrics such as MetricX or xCOMET.
K-EXAONE 90.5%
- MMLU-ProX In use MMLU-Pro translated into up to 29 languages with expert review. Multiple-choice accuracy per language.
Qwen3.7-Max 87%
- CLIcK In use Models answer 1,995 multiple-choice questions on Korean language and culture. Questions come from official Korean exams and textbooks in eleven categories.
Solar Open 2 90.7%
- Global MMLU Lite 3.0 In use Models answer 400 human-translated MMLU questions per language in 23 languages. Version 3.0 adds Czech, Hungarian, Oriya, Slovak and Tajik and updates Italian. Accuracy.
Inkling 88.7%
- MMMB In use Models answer multiple-choice questions about images in six languages across 15 categories. The set has about 12,000 questions. LFM2.5-VL-3B 83%